Animal Rights Or Human Obligations

Recently, more and more people have begun to recognize the importance and necessity of protecting animals, and many nations legislate for protecting animals while movements of protecting animals are coming forth and spreading across the world. But, why shall humans protect animals? The most radical answer among the strikingly different ones theorists have made so far is the theory of animal rights, which emphasizes that animals, like human beings, have the equal moral rights and it is the duty of human beings to treat them with respect as people do their fellows. Nevertheless, is the word of"rights"really suitable for non-human world? The author intends to start with a commentary and analysis of the theory of animal rights, and then make a theoretical probe into the relationship between humans and animals from the angle of the human obligations to animals.The human-animal relation is a topic of long standing, on which a lot of theorists have made comments throughout history. Despite of the divergent viewpoints of argumentation, a common conclusion has been reached that animals are lower living things compared with mankind, and man morally does not owe any direct obligations to them. Only since modern times have Jeremy Bentham, Singer and some other thinkers begun to claim from the utilitarian point of view that human beings should bear obligations to animals, though animals cannot share equal moral standings with man yet. The theory of animal rights goes even further and advocates that animals enjoy equal moral rights with humans. The allegation that produces far greater influence than many other propositions of animal rights is developed by Tom Regan, an American scholar, who inherits Kant's deontology and holds that animals possess the same inherent value as humans do, and this is the necessary and sufficient condition for all theories that stand for animal rights. However, the"inherent value"advanced by Regan is not based upon Kantian rationality and self-discipline but upon the"life-subject", a concept created by Regan himself. Unfortunately, this expansion gets him into an inescapable embarrassment because he cannot present corresponding grounds to support his argument. First, Regan cannot justify his opinion due to the limitations of the theoretical tradition on which he relies. Second, his idea of rights is unable to explain away the common phenomena that animals feed on each other and therefore cannot be accepted as a general rule of the whole nature. In the final analysis, the discourse of rights is originated by mankind on its own, and can only hold true within a certain scope and limit, beyond which the conception of rights will lose its original meaning.In fact, the theory of animal rights is trying to establish an ethical idea based on the non-anthropocentricity, which is springing up in recent years as a new-type ethical theory to investigate the relationship between man, animal and nature. According to non-anthropocentricity, the excessive spoliation of nature and overuse of animals by humans in modern society roots in the traditional anthropocentricity that asserts man, as the master of nature, is the only moral subject with inherent value. In order to solve the problems, the status of man as the moral subject has to be extended to animals, to plants, to all the living things and even to lifeless things. The insurmountable anthropocentricity, however, makes it impossible to express this assertion and demand outside the systems of human languages and values on the one hand, and on the other hand, the proclaims made by the theorists either can but be regarded just as a summon in theory or will only be taken as personal beliefs and individual way of life on account of the factual dominant position of humans. Anyway, we must also notice that the non-anthropocentricity sets up a brand-new vision to look upon the relation between humans and animals, and even that between man and nature in such a manner. This novel eyeshot breaks open a window for us to reflect the anthropocentricity, to reconsider the status of man, and to arouse vigilance to the narrowness and selfishness of humans. This paper hopes to be able to find out a universal and workable way of interpretation to restrict humans in word and deed so as to lay a reasonable foundation for legal protection of animals on the grounds of the proper judgment of the insuperability of anthropocentricity with simultaneous consideration of the new vision brought by non-anthropocentricity.While the theory of animal rights is a wonderful fantasy, yet we have found that it seems impossible for us to find more effective ways to discuss authentically about the improvements on the relationships between humans and animals and the protection of animals other than the self-restraint of individuals with the obligations of humans as a fundamental starting point, when it comes into practice in society and is put into effect in law. In comparison with the theory of animal rights, the theory of human obligations may offer a better and more practical theoretical basis for legal protection of animals. What are the attributes of this kind of obligations of humans to animals? That is a complex question. It can be said that the obligations of humans to animals stem from the human self-love and commiseration. Furthermore, there is no way for us to demonstrate the properties of this kind of obligations just from a single angle because of the complicated relations between man and animal. Seen from the principle of self-advantage, it is beneficial for humans to protect animals, as puts upon us the indirect obligations to animals. The laws passed by different countries, such as Wildlife Protection Law etc., are good examples in this aspect. Besides, we also shoulder the direct obligations to treat animals kindly because they have interests of their own and can feel pains as well. Though animals cannot be moral subjects, they still should be the moral objects under human care. Human beings should try their best to avoid all the unnecessary sufferings imposed on animals. It is based on this understanding that the human obligations to animals are prescribed in animal welfare laws enacted so far around the world.But it is far from enough to give a satisfactory full stop to the relationship between man and animal like this. In actual life, the obligation of man to animal is often overcome by the self-benefit of man when frequent conflicts between the interests of man and those of animal have to be balanced. And this is a dilemma in bringing animals under legal protection. Therefore, a kind of ethics of revering anima should be established in every one of us. To treat anima in awe is rather some sort of attitude, emotion, character or virtue than a criterion of conduct, or a principle to deal with specific problems. Reverence for anima cultivates an inherent and sublime idea of ethics in the depth of our hearts, and thereby thoroughly redresses our attitude toward animals. After all, this is the ultimate end of our exploration into the relationship between man and animal.